I watched the Democratic Convention roll call, on and off. Since Hillary had released her delegates, the numbers were far more lopsided in Obama's favor than they would have been had they reflected the actual primary/caucus votes. Then, of course, Hillary moved for Obama's selection by acclamation.
I assume this was all negotiated and considered. I assume Obama and staff thought this would be a helpful way for things to go. But I have my doubts. Though I didn't support either candidate, I watched those accumulating numbers and felt that this drastic understatement of Hillary's real support was somehow disrespectful -- of her and of those who voted for her. It looked like a distortion and even, in some sense, a humiliation. Numbers like that belonged to a race between an overwhelming favorite and a pathetic also-ran with delusions of seriousness. If I were a Hillary supporter having trouble swallowing the current situation, those numbers would REALLY tick me off. And Hillary's being a team player, good sport, etc. would make me angrier, not more reconciled.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Monday, July 07, 2008
Mazel tov!
A red-letter day, a personal and family triumph -- daughter Alissa tried and enjoyed a bagel with lox and cream cheese.
Alissa is quite fond of salmon, but had the notion that she didn't like lox, aka smoked salmon. (Feel free to enlighten me on when smoked salmon is and isn't technically lox.) I am not very picky about my lox, and she may have previously tried a worse-than-average sample of the cheap stuff with which I usually content myself. Paul, with craft and persuasion, managed to get her to try the expensive variety he likes. One small taste, and she admitted with only slight sheepishness that she liked it too. The two of them dined on toasted bagel, cream cheese and lox.
Paul was triumphant that one of his daughters, at least (the other is a vegetarian), would eat this Jewish staple henceforth. I find this somewhat endearing and amusing, given that he's a blond (now gray-blond) Texan ex-Methodist, Jewish by conversion only (via a particularly tolerant rabbi who somehow overlooked agnosticism verging on atheism).
I am also pleased. Tradi-tion!
Alissa is quite fond of salmon, but had the notion that she didn't like lox, aka smoked salmon. (Feel free to enlighten me on when smoked salmon is and isn't technically lox.) I am not very picky about my lox, and she may have previously tried a worse-than-average sample of the cheap stuff with which I usually content myself. Paul, with craft and persuasion, managed to get her to try the expensive variety he likes. One small taste, and she admitted with only slight sheepishness that she liked it too. The two of them dined on toasted bagel, cream cheese and lox.
Paul was triumphant that one of his daughters, at least (the other is a vegetarian), would eat this Jewish staple henceforth. I find this somewhat endearing and amusing, given that he's a blond (now gray-blond) Texan ex-Methodist, Jewish by conversion only (via a particularly tolerant rabbi who somehow overlooked agnosticism verging on atheism).
I am also pleased. Tradi-tion!
Sunday, July 06, 2008
McCain campaign needs to tell stories like this
When voters get bored with hearing in general terms about McCain's captivity and fortitude in North Vietnam, they need to hear stories like this (from the Wall Street Journal via Powerline):
"[Colonel Bud Day, a Medal of Honor recipient and America's most highly decorated veteran, shared a cell for some time with McCain.] Day escaped his original detention in North Vietnam, but was recaptured. Upon recapture, the North Vietnamese conveyed a harsh message:
'When he was recaptured, a Vietnamese captor broke his arm and said, "I told you I would make you a cripple."
'The break was designed to shatter Mr. Day's will. He had survived in prison on the hope that one day he would return to the United States and be able to fly again. To kill that hope, the Vietnamese left part of a bone sticking out of his arm, and put him in a misshapen cast. This was done so that the arm would heal at "a goofy angle," as Mr. Day explained. Had it done so, he never would have flown again.
'But it didn't heal that way because of John McCain. Risking severe punishment, Messrs. McCain and Day collected pieces of bamboo in the prison courtyard to use as a splint. Mr. McCain put Mr. Day on the floor of their cell and, using his foot, jerked the broken bone into place. Then, using strips from the bandage on his own wounded leg and the bamboo, he put Mr. Day's splint in place.Years later, Air Force surgeons examined Mr. Day and complimented the treatment he'd gotten from his captors. Mr. Day corrected them. It was Dr. McCain who deserved the credit. Mr. Day went on to fly again.' "
The Wall Street Journal article has other stories as well, including how Cindy McCain brought a dying orphan from Bangladesh to the U.S. for medical treatment and the McCains adopted her.
If the McCain campaign can't find a way to tell stories like these effectively, 527's had better get on the stick!
"[Colonel Bud Day, a Medal of Honor recipient and America's most highly decorated veteran, shared a cell for some time with McCain.] Day escaped his original detention in North Vietnam, but was recaptured. Upon recapture, the North Vietnamese conveyed a harsh message:
'When he was recaptured, a Vietnamese captor broke his arm and said, "I told you I would make you a cripple."
'The break was designed to shatter Mr. Day's will. He had survived in prison on the hope that one day he would return to the United States and be able to fly again. To kill that hope, the Vietnamese left part of a bone sticking out of his arm, and put him in a misshapen cast. This was done so that the arm would heal at "a goofy angle," as Mr. Day explained. Had it done so, he never would have flown again.
'But it didn't heal that way because of John McCain. Risking severe punishment, Messrs. McCain and Day collected pieces of bamboo in the prison courtyard to use as a splint. Mr. McCain put Mr. Day on the floor of their cell and, using his foot, jerked the broken bone into place. Then, using strips from the bandage on his own wounded leg and the bamboo, he put Mr. Day's splint in place.Years later, Air Force surgeons examined Mr. Day and complimented the treatment he'd gotten from his captors. Mr. Day corrected them. It was Dr. McCain who deserved the credit. Mr. Day went on to fly again.' "
The Wall Street Journal article has other stories as well, including how Cindy McCain brought a dying orphan from Bangladesh to the U.S. for medical treatment and the McCains adopted her.
If the McCain campaign can't find a way to tell stories like these effectively, 527's had better get on the stick!
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Su-per Senator passes laws solo!
Not once, but twice! Both of Obama's general election ads have trumpted that he "passed laws" doing thus-and-so. As has been noted elsewhere, no one legislator can pass a law. But since Obama is supposed to be the harbinger of a new kind of politics, maybe Yes He Can....
(I also read an article somewhere claiming that he didn't end up supporting one or more of the laws on which his claims (in the first ad) were based -- but other articles, such as the post I just linked to, seem to disagree.)
(I also read an article somewhere claiming that he didn't end up supporting one or more of the laws on which his claims (in the first ad) were based -- but other articles, such as the post I just linked to, seem to disagree.)
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Let Uncommitted be Uncommitted
One thing should be easy about the overall-difficult issue of the Florida and Michigan delegates. At whatever strength the Michigan delegates are seated, the proportion derived from the vote for "uncommitted" should get to be -- gee -- uncommitted! That's what people voted for. Like superdelegates, the delegates in the uncommitted group could wait until the convention to announce their preferences, or could let people know (in a nonbinding way) ahead of time.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
armchair sociology
I had occasion to see some interesting social patterns in action a couple of weeks ago. (And if I were close to diligent about blogging, I'd have mentioned it then.)
Joshua Bell, world-famous classical violinist, hails from Bloomington, IN, and was gracious enough to give a free concert here last weekend, with a pianist friend of his, Jeremy Denk. Tickets were available as of 11 a.m. on a weekday morning. The line started forming around 8:40 a.m. (I know because an acquaintance of mine was first in line). I arrived around 10:40 a.m. and found a line of people waiting in the cold -- a line that looked surprisingly short, until I saw that most of it was inside the building. The line snaked back and forth through the lobby. The loops were crowded so close together that it was sometimes difficult to keep track of which was which, especially since people kept stepping across to chat with each other. And yet no one, so far as I could see, made any attempt to jump the queue. Nor was there any impatience evident, although those of us in my part of the line ended up waiting for two hours. The line etiquette/ethos may have been bolstered by the presence of auditorium staff, giving occasional updates and reassurances, discreetly keeping an eye on things. And of course, it was reasonably clear what we were supposed to do and where we were supposed to go.
On to the nearby parking garage -- and a very different scene. Cars converged from several directions on the narrow exit. The line of cars with the clearest shot did not, most of the time, take turns with those coming from the side. It took ingenuity and/or recklessness to get one's car out of a spot in the first place, and then to get the heck out. (I had to create a new lane of traffic -- yes, there was room -- in order to get out of my spot, and then play chicken with a driver in the favorably positioned lane.)
And of course, these were pretty much all the same people who'd been following the rules so nicely in the line at the auditorium.
One main difference was that there were rules apparent in the auditorium. Another was the presence of those who might enforce those rules. And finally, as my husband pointed out: people are different in cars.
Joshua Bell, world-famous classical violinist, hails from Bloomington, IN, and was gracious enough to give a free concert here last weekend, with a pianist friend of his, Jeremy Denk. Tickets were available as of 11 a.m. on a weekday morning. The line started forming around 8:40 a.m. (I know because an acquaintance of mine was first in line). I arrived around 10:40 a.m. and found a line of people waiting in the cold -- a line that looked surprisingly short, until I saw that most of it was inside the building. The line snaked back and forth through the lobby. The loops were crowded so close together that it was sometimes difficult to keep track of which was which, especially since people kept stepping across to chat with each other. And yet no one, so far as I could see, made any attempt to jump the queue. Nor was there any impatience evident, although those of us in my part of the line ended up waiting for two hours. The line etiquette/ethos may have been bolstered by the presence of auditorium staff, giving occasional updates and reassurances, discreetly keeping an eye on things. And of course, it was reasonably clear what we were supposed to do and where we were supposed to go.
On to the nearby parking garage -- and a very different scene. Cars converged from several directions on the narrow exit. The line of cars with the clearest shot did not, most of the time, take turns with those coming from the side. It took ingenuity and/or recklessness to get one's car out of a spot in the first place, and then to get the heck out. (I had to create a new lane of traffic -- yes, there was room -- in order to get out of my spot, and then play chicken with a driver in the favorably positioned lane.)
And of course, these were pretty much all the same people who'd been following the rules so nicely in the line at the auditorium.
One main difference was that there were rules apparent in the auditorium. Another was the presence of those who might enforce those rules. And finally, as my husband pointed out: people are different in cars.
Snow and the ebbing of the American spirit
Apparently some of the local schools no longer let kids play in the snow at recess. I find that appalling enough. But what's really dispiriting is the collection of letters that were in the paper the other day. It appears that some 6th grade class was given the assignment of writing letters to the editor re whether they approved or disapproved of the no-play policy. (Here's the link, but I don't think it'll work for anyone who doesn't subscribe to the Bloomington Herald-Times.) Given how much the letters resembled each other, the kids may have had a list of pros and cons to choose from. What really makes me wonder where America went and how long it's been gone is that 9 out of 16 kids thought they should not be allowed to play in the snow at recess. Reasons:
--Kids could get wet and cold. (Example: "Just imagine every kid cold and wet from playing in the snow and how fast kids would get sick.") And they might not have snow gear.
--Kids could get hurt. Someone could put a rock in a snowball.
--Whatever will the teachers do with the wet outerwear?...
Risk is the only thing to consider. Any risk is too much. The way to handle the risk of inappropriate behavior is to ban all related activity. Any difficulty is too much to handle.
Is there ANY way to turn this around?!!??...
--Kids could get wet and cold. (Example: "Just imagine every kid cold and wet from playing in the snow and how fast kids would get sick.") And they might not have snow gear.
--Kids could get hurt. Someone could put a rock in a snowball.
--Whatever will the teachers do with the wet outerwear?...
Risk is the only thing to consider. Any risk is too much. The way to handle the risk of inappropriate behavior is to ban all related activity. Any difficulty is too much to handle.
Is there ANY way to turn this around?!!??...
Woman, the tool-using animal
We had ice raining down the other night, covering pretty much everything. (My daughter described this in, I think, quite amusing terms on her live journal.) One temporary casualty was the flag on our mail box: frozen in the down ("nothing here, guys!") position. So I took a screwdriver out there and chipped away the ice. Presto, functional mailbox flag!
It doesn't take much in the way of technical achievement to make me feel proud of myself....
It doesn't take much in the way of technical achievement to make me feel proud of myself....
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Thompson Blogburst (notwithstanding...)
Despite my reservations about Fred Thompson, noted earlier, I'd like to see him stay in the race, and I may prefer him to the rest of the pack. He is bright and can write. He does not steer by polls. Most important to me, he understands that we are in a real, hot war to preserve a number of things that make humanity a worthwhile accident-or-invention (that's for another post) -- like democracy, scientific method, freedom of conscience, secular thinking, treating women like human beings, treating human beings ditto.
Right Wing Nut House asks bloggers who support Thompson (I refuse to say "Fred") to ask their readers to cough up some money. In the event I have any readers, please consider it....
Right Wing Nut House asks bloggers who support Thompson (I refuse to say "Fred") to ask their readers to cough up some money. In the event I have any readers, please consider it....
Friday, January 04, 2008
What Thompson's campaign says about his ability to reshape a bureaucracy
Since Fred Thompson's campaign actually began, I've been quite disappointed in its feel and tone -- cookie cutter EveryPolitician stuff with no individual touch and no appearance of respecting the voter's intelligence. It occurred to me today that the campaign tastes and smells as if it's run by the campaign equivalent of bureaucrats. Which doesn't bode well for how a President Thompson would deal with the entrenched federal bureaucracy. Would he be able to shake it up at all, to reshape it, to exert much control over it? I'd like to think so, but I'm not too optimistic at present.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Some improvs
A few days ago, younger daughter Alissa asked me to give her some improv acting assignments. Here are a few I came up with. Feel free to try these at home....
--Porcupine with an itchy rash
--Extreme fishing
--Game show host with a hangover
--Dracula at a job interview
--Boxer with a phobia about contact
--Underdog at the vet
--Realtor showing a haunted house
--Infomercial for hemorrhoid cream
--Time traveller in ancient Athens looking for the bathroom
--The Queen in Snow White shopping for a new mirror
--Porcupine with an itchy rash
--Extreme fishing
--Game show host with a hangover
--Dracula at a job interview
--Boxer with a phobia about contact
--Underdog at the vet
--Realtor showing a haunted house
--Infomercial for hemorrhoid cream
--Time traveller in ancient Athens looking for the bathroom
--The Queen in Snow White shopping for a new mirror
Does Fred Thompson want my money?
I was excited about Fred Thompson for a while, before he actually got in the race, because I liked his blog posts -- both their content (usually) and their style. I was not thrilled with the style of his campaign -- recycled politician-pap for the most part -- but I am still inclined to prefer him over the other major candidates, so I decided to pony up a bit of money. I tried to contribute $15.00 -- the same amount I've recently sent to ACLU Indiana and to St. Jude's -- to his campaign. However, when I entered that amount at the Donate link on his campaign website, I got a little message in red saying the amount was "inappropriate".
And how inappropriate is it to diss a would-be contributor? (Is that how to spell "diss"?)
I've sent an email, also through the website, asking whether they really don't want my money. I'll update with any response I get.
And how inappropriate is it to diss a would-be contributor? (Is that how to spell "diss"?)
I've sent an email, also through the website, asking whether they really don't want my money. I'll update with any response I get.
Monday, November 19, 2007
The Catch-All Amendment
A while back (it takes an idea a while to make it here), as I was dealing with some statute or other, it occurred to me how often statutes listing factors for trial courts to consider end the list with some sort of catch-all. Such a provision typically authorizes the judge to consider "all other relevant factors" or something of the sort. Viewed in this context, the Ninth Amendment seems somewhat less troubling and impractical. If statutes can have catch-all provisions, why not the Bill of Rights? In each case, it's left to members of the judiciary to fill in the blanks.
Chill
I just read a post on Pajamas Media about how to deal with potentially nasty political discussions at family gatherings (e.g. Thanksgiving dinner). It reminded me of last summer's trip to Los Angeles, where much of my generally-liberal extended family resides.
Some time before, one of my daughters came up with the idea of a "CHILL" sign, to be produced and displayed when a political or other discussion became heated. During the summer visit, we spent some time at a cousin's house, gathered around a long table. At one end, I got into a spirited but friendly debate with an uncle about Iraq. One daughter, at the other end of the table, feared that things were getting out of hand, and made a CHILL sign from a napkin. The other daughter, closer to the action, could see that all was civil. She responded with her own napkin stating "They're just discussing". We then put the two signs together to read "Chill -- they're just discussing".... I rather like the idea of having both signs available, and deploying either or both as needed.
Some time before, one of my daughters came up with the idea of a "CHILL" sign, to be produced and displayed when a political or other discussion became heated. During the summer visit, we spent some time at a cousin's house, gathered around a long table. At one end, I got into a spirited but friendly debate with an uncle about Iraq. One daughter, at the other end of the table, feared that things were getting out of hand, and made a CHILL sign from a napkin. The other daughter, closer to the action, could see that all was civil. She responded with her own napkin stating "They're just discussing". We then put the two signs together to read "Chill -- they're just discussing".... I rather like the idea of having both signs available, and deploying either or both as needed.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
some thoughts on abortion and technological advances
I sometimes think up imaginary conversations while driving, and today's concerned abortion. I imagined someone asking me how I felt about abortion. The initial answer: "Queasy...." However, I went on, I basically thought that up to some point in the pregnancy, it should be the mother's (if that's the right word) decision. Trying to figure out just where that point was, I ended up with an answer dependent on technology we don't have yet: once we have artificial wombs capable of nurturing a fetus until it's full-term, it should probably not be the woman's option to kill it rather than off-loading it.
Althought that raises lots of sticky questions: who pays for the out-of-mother gestation? Can a woman still abort if the state won't pay? And what parental rights, if any, does a woman retain who was ready to kill her fetus? May she veto a social service agency's decision as to where to place the baby? A factor further confusing things: once it's possible to end pregnancy early without harming the fetus, many women will want to do so, without any present intention of avoiding the maternal role post-partum. At that point, it will often be impossible to determine who was ready to abort, and who decided later that she wanted to give her baby up for adoption. I don't know whether parents who give up babies for adoption have any leverage, at present, as to what happens to the baby.
That's as far as I can follow this tangle for the moment.
Althought that raises lots of sticky questions: who pays for the out-of-mother gestation? Can a woman still abort if the state won't pay? And what parental rights, if any, does a woman retain who was ready to kill her fetus? May she veto a social service agency's decision as to where to place the baby? A factor further confusing things: once it's possible to end pregnancy early without harming the fetus, many women will want to do so, without any present intention of avoiding the maternal role post-partum. At that point, it will often be impossible to determine who was ready to abort, and who decided later that she wanted to give her baby up for adoption. I don't know whether parents who give up babies for adoption have any leverage, at present, as to what happens to the baby.
That's as far as I can follow this tangle for the moment.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
The genocide resolution: more than one way to skin a president
I haven't seen any discussion of what seems to me a likely motive for the Democrats' persistence in pushing the genocide resolution.
The Democrats have been unable to muster the political will-muscle combination to force a withdrawal from Iraq. However, passing this resolution is likely to do serious, possibly fatal, harm to the Iraq military mission. Turkey may well withdraw various key permissions. Our position might finally become as untenable as the Democrats keep pretending it already is. Gee, I wonder who'd be happy about that (aside from AQ in Iraq, Iran, etc.)?
This way, they can undercut "Bush's war" while acting self-righteous about something supposedly unrelated.
UPDATE: At least one commentator has now made this point -- Thomas Sowell.
The Democrats have been unable to muster the political will-muscle combination to force a withdrawal from Iraq. However, passing this resolution is likely to do serious, possibly fatal, harm to the Iraq military mission. Turkey may well withdraw various key permissions. Our position might finally become as untenable as the Democrats keep pretending it already is. Gee, I wonder who'd be happy about that (aside from AQ in Iraq, Iran, etc.)?
This way, they can undercut "Bush's war" while acting self-righteous about something supposedly unrelated.
UPDATE: At least one commentator has now made this point -- Thomas Sowell.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
The deterioration continues
In other news, my arthritic toes aren't giving too much trouble, but I now have tennis elbow. I believe I acquired this from utterly sedentary activity -- too much image processing in too short of time. (I photographed a wedding on 7-07-07, and had to edit 1000+ images and post the better ones before leaving town on 7-25.)
I'm oddly un-resentful of this sort of sign of aging. I'm less complaisant about the cosmetic changes. It has something to do with having decided, at 50+, to finally start paying attention to dress and grooming. I'd like not to have my nose rubbed in the fact that I got started just a lee-tle late.
I'm oddly un-resentful of this sort of sign of aging. I'm less complaisant about the cosmetic changes. It has something to do with having decided, at 50+, to finally start paying attention to dress and grooming. I'd like not to have my nose rubbed in the fact that I got started just a lee-tle late.
Miscellanea, including a rant and Harry Potter questions
Someone actually looked at my blog recently, which inspires me to stop proscrastinating and post. Actually, I can blog and procrastinate simultaneously, as I have literally a pile of work to do (exhibits to review).
As I was contemplating writing this, it occurred to me that someone should cobble together and market a gizmo allowing one to dictate and transmit draft blog posts while driving. Hands-free, please.
I've promised a rant and some Harry Potter questions -- I feel more like the latter, so it'll come first.
SPOILER ALERT! These questions may imply plot points in the seventh HP book!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hope that's enough >'s....
I've finished the last book, reread the second, am rereading the first, and am VERY glad that Rowling is likely to write an encyclopedia. I am not ready to un-immerse myself.
Rowling has done interviews and at least one long chat in which she's answered various questions the book didn't answer. I was pleased that she answered one of mine: what's the Hufflepuff common room like?... However, I have a few left:
--Why does Dumbledore repeatedly show and declare SO much trust in Hagrid? He's completely goodhearted, of course, but his judgment is very unreliable. (Examples aren't limited to his persistent tendency to underestimate the dangers posed by various magical creatures. When Harry encounters Draco Malfoy in a shop -- I forget in what part of which book -- Hagrid is wrongly confident that Draco wouldn't cause trouble in such a public place.)
--Why (other than for literary reasons) does Dumbledore usually refer to "Voldemort" rather than "Tom Riddle"? Wouldn't it be useful for V's origins to be more widely known? And doesn't Dumbledore believe in calling things by their real names?
--How did Dumbledore defeat Grindelwald? The usual way to defeat an owner of the Elder Wand is by underhanded stealth (e.g. murdering the owner in his sleep). One hopes that wasn't Dumbledore's approach, and I believe there are references to a climactic duel -- but how would he defeat someone wielding the Elder Wand in a duel?
--This may be a plot hole: Voldemort thought he was the only one to know about the Room of Requirement. Therefore, when he hid the tiara there, there can't have been any other hidden possessions in the room. But when Harry hid his (Snape's old) Potions book in that room in Book Five, there were generations' worth of hidden possessions there. Voldemort can't have specified a hiding place no one else could discover, because Harry saw the tiara there, without knowing what it was. Did all the other hidden items accumulate after Voldemort's time? Seems unlikely, given the quantity and the age of Hogwarts.
Please add more questions in Comments!
... OK, the rant. You've heard (read) this song before -- here's another verse.
It appears that we now have a growing societal problem with Vitamin D deficiency, attributable to people following all the advice to avoid exposure to sunlight. (Here's a link, and another, to a couple of the articles on the subject.) I find this nicely symbolic of the effects of our societal obsession with safety. As in this instance, it is often simplistic, short-sighted, focusing on one or two trees and ignoring even the possibility of a forest.
The sun has historically been a symbol of life. We've been telling people to hide from it. It fits. We've trained the younger generations to spend all their time poised to recognize and protect themselves from one supposed hazard after another. That attitude is fundamentally inconsistent with a spirit of exploration and innovation -- and even with enjoying the everyday incidents and pleasures of life. A pervasive and constant fear of death ends up, in effect, as fear of life.
OK, who's next on the soapbox? Be sure it isn't too high, and that it's been inspected for its weight-bearing properties....
As I was contemplating writing this, it occurred to me that someone should cobble together and market a gizmo allowing one to dictate and transmit draft blog posts while driving. Hands-free, please.
I've promised a rant and some Harry Potter questions -- I feel more like the latter, so it'll come first.
SPOILER ALERT! These questions may imply plot points in the seventh HP book!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hope that's enough >'s....
I've finished the last book, reread the second, am rereading the first, and am VERY glad that Rowling is likely to write an encyclopedia. I am not ready to un-immerse myself.
Rowling has done interviews and at least one long chat in which she's answered various questions the book didn't answer. I was pleased that she answered one of mine: what's the Hufflepuff common room like?... However, I have a few left:
--Why does Dumbledore repeatedly show and declare SO much trust in Hagrid? He's completely goodhearted, of course, but his judgment is very unreliable. (Examples aren't limited to his persistent tendency to underestimate the dangers posed by various magical creatures. When Harry encounters Draco Malfoy in a shop -- I forget in what part of which book -- Hagrid is wrongly confident that Draco wouldn't cause trouble in such a public place.)
--Why (other than for literary reasons) does Dumbledore usually refer to "Voldemort" rather than "Tom Riddle"? Wouldn't it be useful for V's origins to be more widely known? And doesn't Dumbledore believe in calling things by their real names?
--How did Dumbledore defeat Grindelwald? The usual way to defeat an owner of the Elder Wand is by underhanded stealth (e.g. murdering the owner in his sleep). One hopes that wasn't Dumbledore's approach, and I believe there are references to a climactic duel -- but how would he defeat someone wielding the Elder Wand in a duel?
--This may be a plot hole: Voldemort thought he was the only one to know about the Room of Requirement. Therefore, when he hid the tiara there, there can't have been any other hidden possessions in the room. But when Harry hid his (Snape's old) Potions book in that room in Book Five, there were generations' worth of hidden possessions there. Voldemort can't have specified a hiding place no one else could discover, because Harry saw the tiara there, without knowing what it was. Did all the other hidden items accumulate after Voldemort's time? Seems unlikely, given the quantity and the age of Hogwarts.
Please add more questions in Comments!
... OK, the rant. You've heard (read) this song before -- here's another verse.
It appears that we now have a growing societal problem with Vitamin D deficiency, attributable to people following all the advice to avoid exposure to sunlight. (Here's a link, and another, to a couple of the articles on the subject.) I find this nicely symbolic of the effects of our societal obsession with safety. As in this instance, it is often simplistic, short-sighted, focusing on one or two trees and ignoring even the possibility of a forest.
The sun has historically been a symbol of life. We've been telling people to hide from it. It fits. We've trained the younger generations to spend all their time poised to recognize and protect themselves from one supposed hazard after another. That attitude is fundamentally inconsistent with a spirit of exploration and innovation -- and even with enjoying the everyday incidents and pleasures of life. A pervasive and constant fear of death ends up, in effect, as fear of life.
OK, who's next on the soapbox? Be sure it isn't too high, and that it's been inspected for its weight-bearing properties....
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
an open letter to Fred Thompson
Dear Senator Thompson:
[Query: is that the proper form of address for an ex-Sen?]
I am one of those who have been hoping you would seek the Republican presidential nomination. I have read a fair number of your columns. I was excited by how often I agreed with them, and thrilled at the prospect that someone as articulate and straightforward as you appeared to be might have a real chance at the Presidency.
I sent a modest contribution, and here are some excerpts from the email I got in return.
"Now we’re moving forward together. . . . [I]f I do take on this challenge, we’re not going to do things the same old way. . . . We’re going to plow some new ground and make a real difference for our nation. . . . I believe there is a real sense across our country that we’re tired of the same old petty politics. Our fellow Americans want to see some real change."
This is the same type and style of politician-speak that I would have expected to see in a message from the campaign of Mark Warner, or Barack Obama, or who knows how many politicians past and present. It is stale. It is boring. It is fungible. It belies the very idea of "real change".
Please, Senator -- don't subside into this sort of sludge before you've fairly begun.
Sincerely, Karen A. Wyle, would-be actual supporter of a Presidential candidate
[Query: is that the proper form of address for an ex-Sen?]
I am one of those who have been hoping you would seek the Republican presidential nomination. I have read a fair number of your columns. I was excited by how often I agreed with them, and thrilled at the prospect that someone as articulate and straightforward as you appeared to be might have a real chance at the Presidency.
I sent a modest contribution, and here are some excerpts from the email I got in return.
"Now we’re moving forward together. . . . [I]f I do take on this challenge, we’re not going to do things the same old way. . . . We’re going to plow some new ground and make a real difference for our nation. . . . I believe there is a real sense across our country that we’re tired of the same old petty politics. Our fellow Americans want to see some real change."
This is the same type and style of politician-speak that I would have expected to see in a message from the campaign of Mark Warner, or Barack Obama, or who knows how many politicians past and present. It is stale. It is boring. It is fungible. It belies the very idea of "real change".
Please, Senator -- don't subside into this sort of sludge before you've fairly begun.
Sincerely, Karen A. Wyle, would-be actual supporter of a Presidential candidate
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
The defeated inflating the victory -- campaign finance decision
OK, I'll post about a legal topic for a change -- though not in a particularly lawyerlike manner.
I've been looking at articles and posts about the USSC's latest 5-4 decision on campaign finance regulation. A couple of articles or posts (I don't remember which) are making this out to be a great victory for opponents of such regulation. Count me as an opponent -- I think political speech like "Vote for Joe and against Jack" is exactly the kind of political speech that the First Amendment is intended to protect to the fullest possible extent. And as an opponent of regulating political speech, I don't think the Roberts opinion, at least, is a great victory -- it's just a lot better than a defeat. It improves the status quo ante; it includes some good language that could have been used to greater effect; and it provides a wink-wink-nudge-nudge loophole of adequate size. Call me a grouch, but I consider it demeaning to have to phrase a political ad in a particular way to get it past censors.
UPDATE: I should read the opinions before commenting further, but here I go anyhow: SCOTUSBlog paraphrases Roberts as saying that "[th]e case did not provide an occasion to revisit [the 2003 ruling that upheld the constitutionality of the federal law restricting such radio and TV ads close to elections]." IMHO, cases provide such "occasions" when the Justices want them to. As did three of the Justices in the majority.
I've been looking at articles and posts about the USSC's latest 5-4 decision on campaign finance regulation. A couple of articles or posts (I don't remember which) are making this out to be a great victory for opponents of such regulation. Count me as an opponent -- I think political speech like "Vote for Joe and against Jack" is exactly the kind of political speech that the First Amendment is intended to protect to the fullest possible extent. And as an opponent of regulating political speech, I don't think the Roberts opinion, at least, is a great victory -- it's just a lot better than a defeat. It improves the status quo ante; it includes some good language that could have been used to greater effect; and it provides a wink-wink-nudge-nudge loophole of adequate size. Call me a grouch, but I consider it demeaning to have to phrase a political ad in a particular way to get it past censors.
UPDATE: I should read the opinions before commenting further, but here I go anyhow: SCOTUSBlog paraphrases Roberts as saying that "[th]e case did not provide an occasion to revisit [the 2003 ruling that upheld the constitutionality of the federal law restricting such radio and TV ads close to elections]." IMHO, cases provide such "occasions" when the Justices want them to. As did three of the Justices in the majority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)